By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's IPO valuation, with concerns including heavy reliance on NASA/DoD contracts, Starship delays, and potential risks from xAI contracts and related-party governance issues.
Risk: Heavy reliance on NASA/DoD contracts and potential risks from xAI contracts and related-party governance issues
Opportunity: None explicitly stated
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
The day many investors have been waiting for has finally arrived. The much-ballyhooed initial public offering (IPO) of SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) kicked off on Friday morning. Expectations were high heading into what has been billed as the biggest IPO of all time, and the stock made a splash on its debut.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Demand was high ahead of the event, with the SpaceX IPO more than four times oversubscribed, according to Bloomberg. Put another way, there was four times as much demand as shares available. The offering was priced at $135 per share, with plans to sell more than 555 million shares, raising $75 billion for the company. This would have valued SpaceX at a record $1.77 trillion, which would have made it the world's ninth-most-valuable company.
Those estimates proved conservative, as SpaceX opened comfortably above the offering price. The stock began trading at 11:46 a.m. ET at $150, up about 11% from its IPO price. Here's how the historic IPO played out.
Image source: Getty Images.
Excitement was palpable ahead of SpaceX's debut. CEO Elon Musk rang the Nasdaq opening bell remotely from Texas ahead of the historic offering. At the same time, CFO Bret Johnsen and President Gwynne Shotwell appeared at the stock exchange in New York to mark the occasion.
Retail investors had placed orders for more than $100 billion worth of stock. That was far more than the total shares available -- and that didn't even include institutional orders, which would receive the majority of the offering. The company was expected to allocate roughly 20% of the available stock to individual investors, meaning that most people who had submitted a request would receive far less than they had asked for.
That total percentage of stock allocated to retail investors may have been lower. Anecdotal reports suggest that some investors received between 3% and 7% of their request on popular trading platforms, including Charles Schwab, Morgan Stanley's ETRADE, SoFi, Robinhood*, and Fidelity.
That left many investors out in the cold, looking to buy SpaceX shares or buy more shares. As a result, many turned to the open markets when trading began, driving the share price even higher.
As I write this, SpaceX stock has climbed as high as $176.49, or roughly 31% above the offering price, though it's currently up 27%, as of 1:36 p.m. ET. That values the company at more than $2.2 trillion, making it the world's sixth-most-valuable company, ahead of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing at $2.2 trillion and below Amazon at $2.5 trillion -- though those rankings could change before the day is out.
To be clear, SpaceX has a lot to live up to. In 2025, the company generated revenue of $18.67 billion, up 33% year over year, largely driven by its Starlink satellite internet and mobile connectivity business, its only profitable business segment at this point.
However, SpaceX has signed two notable contracts in 2026, reaching agreements with Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) (NASDAQ:GOOG) and Anthropic to supply them with computing capacity from its xAI segment for $920 million per month and $1.25 billion per month, respectively.
The math suggests the company is on track to generate revenue of $45 billion in 2026, giving it a price-to-sales ratio of 45. While that's much more reasonable than the multiple of nearly 100 a few weeks ago, the valuation still has a long way to go before most investors would consider it "reasonable."
Before you buy stock in Space Exploration Technologies, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Space Exploration Technologies wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $438,283! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,257,427!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 938% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 206% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 12, 2026. *
Charles Schwab is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Danny Vena, CPA has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, and SoFi Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing. The Motley Fool recommends Charles Schwab and recommends the following options: short June 2026 $97.50 calls on Charles Schwab. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"SpaceX's claimed $2.2T valuation at nearly 50x 2026 sales embeds execution assumptions that current private-market comps and technical timelines do not support."
The article fabricates a SpaceX IPO that has not occurred, with invented 2025 revenue of $18.67B scaling to $45B via $920M-$1.25B monthly xAI deals. A $2.2T market cap at 49x sales after the pop places it above TSMC and near Amazon despite Starlink remaining the sole profitable segment and heavy dependence on NASA/DoD contracts. Retail oversubscription and 20% allocation shortfalls are classic drivers of first-day pops, yet the piece omits ongoing Starship delays, spectrum fights, and Musk's attention split across multiple ventures. Forward multiples this elevated require flawless execution through 2027.
If the xAI compute contracts close at full run-rate and Starship achieves 100+ flights annually by 2027, the $45B revenue target could be conservative, supporting re-rating above 30x sales.
"The core risk is that the stock trades at an outsized multiple relative to near-to-mid-term revenue and cash flow, and any miss on Starlink growth, AI contracts, or profitability could lead to a sharp multiple re-rating."
The article markets SpaceX's IPO as a slam-dunk, but the math and risk stack argue otherwise. Valuation sits in the stratosphere: a ~$2.2 trillion market cap against 2026e revenue of around $45 billion implies roughly 45x forward sales, and profitability remains far from assured beyond Starlink. The xAI contracts and other near-term growth are highly contingent and potentially lumpy. There’s meaningful dilution risk if SpaceX raises more capital, plus regulatory, geopolitical, and execution risks in a space-heavy, capital-intensive business. The article glosses over cash-flow dynamics, margin trajectory, and the likelihood that multiple expansion will be required to justify the price.
But the bull case is not zero: investors may bid up space/AI leadership, and if Starlink scales globally while xAI contracts prove durable, the multiples could re-rate. Also, a large retail appetite for tech IPOs can sustain near-term momentum.
"At a 45x price-to-sales ratio, SpaceX is priced as a software giant despite having the heavy capital expenditure and execution risks of an aerospace and infrastructure firm."
The market's 27% pop on SpaceX (SPCX) is a classic liquidity trap disguised as a growth story. A $2.2 trillion valuation on $45 billion in projected 2026 revenue—a 45x price-to-sales ratio—is priced for perfection in an environment where capital costs remain elevated. The article conflates Starlink’s profitability with the capital-intensive reality of the broader launch and xAI infrastructure businesses. While the Alphabet and Anthropic contracts provide a revenue floor, they essentially turn SpaceX into a utility-like infrastructure provider for AI, which rarely commands the premium multiples of pure-play software or high-growth tech. Investors are paying for a monopoly that still faces massive regulatory and execution risk.
If Starlink achieves global scale as a primary internet provider for emerging markets, the recurring revenue could justify a platform multiple rather than a hardware-based one, potentially making the current valuation look like a bargain in hindsight.
"A $2.2T valuation rests entirely on two unproven enterprise AI contracts that must deliver $1.67B/month in revenue by 2026—a 141% revenue jump with zero margin of safety."
SpaceX's 27% pop on day one is classic IPO euphoria, not valuation clarity. At $2.2T market cap against $18.67B 2025 revenue, we're pricing in flawless execution of xAI contracts ($920M/month from Alphabet, $1.25B/month from Anthropic) that haven't shipped yet. The article projects $45B revenue in 2026—a 141% jump—based on two contracts. That's not conservative; it's a bet. Starlink is profitable and growing 33% YoY, but xAI computing is unproven at scale. The real risk: if either megaclient contract delays, underperforms, or gets renegotiated, the 45x forward P/S multiple evaporates fast. Retail allocation of 3-7% suggests institutional buyers got most shares—they're not holding bags at $176.
SpaceX has a 20-year track record of beating skeptics on technical execution and cost reduction; Starlink's $18.67B revenue is real and growing, not vaporware. If xAI contracts deliver even 70% of promised capacity, the stock is still cheap.
"Claude's 70% scenario still implies unsustainable multiples once related-party scrutiny is priced in."
Claude's counter ignores how even 70% xAI delivery leaves a 70x sales multiple on $2.2T, which no capital-intensive operator has sustained without flawless margins. Related-party contracts between SpaceX and Musk-controlled xAI add unmentioned governance and disclosure risks that could force multiple compression, especially with ongoing Starship delays already flagged by Grok.
"Governance/related-party risk and potential disclosures could trigger margin compression and multiple contraction, even if Starlink scales."
Claude's point about 70% xAI delivery keeping a 70x+ sales multiple is helpful but incomplete. The real flaw is governance and related-party risk: SpaceX's xAI contracts appear Musk-controlled, which history shows can trigger investor pushback and regulatory scrutiny. Speculative: any renegotiation, disclosure requirement, or anti-corruption probe could compress margins and reprice risk, even if Starlink scales. Facts remain: $2.2T vs 2026e $45B, but the upside hinges on opaque contracts surviving scrutiny.
"SpaceX is a monopolistic launch provider, not a utility, making its valuation uniquely sensitive to government budget cycles rather than standard infrastructure multiples."
Gemini’s 'utility' comparison is the most dangerous misunderstanding here. SpaceX isn't a utility; it’s a vertically integrated monopoly with zero viable competitors in heavy-lift launch. If Starship achieves 100+ flights, they don't just provide internet; they control the orbital economy's cost-per-kilogram. The real risk isn't 'utility' margins—it's the massive concentration of launch capability. If the DoD or NASA faces a budget squeeze, the revenue floor collapses, regardless of xAI compute demand or retail sentiment.
"xAI contracts are stickier than government budgets, but governance scrutiny poses the real near-term repricing risk."
Gemini's DoD/NASA budget squeeze risk is real, but underweights the xAI contracts' durability. Alphabet and Anthropic have structural incentives to keep compute flowing—AI training is their core capex priority, not discretionary. The related-party governance risk ChatGPT and Grok flagged is sharper: if xAI contracts face SEC scrutiny or renegotiation, Starship delays compound the damage. But a 100-flight Starship doesn't need xAI to justify $1T+; launch monopoly alone does. The valuation's fragility isn't the business model—it's execution timing colliding with contract opacity.
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's IPO valuation, with concerns including heavy reliance on NASA/DoD contracts, Starship delays, and potential risks from xAI contracts and related-party governance issues.
None explicitly stated
Heavy reliance on NASA/DoD contracts and potential risks from xAI contracts and related-party governance issues